MERGED: Sin/Confessing both thoughts and acts?

[Vico]

…?

Being tempted is not sinful. The thoughts, subconscious memories, habits, and sensory (name removed by moderator)ut of all types are avenues of temptation. You mention:

• unwanted thoughts and feelings
• rejecting these thoughts and feelings fast enough
• thinking of or associating with certain people.

It should help if you understand what a serious sin is: lack of charity. Lack of charity exists if one knows what thoughts, actions, and omissions are sinful, and has the power to control what is thought, done, and not done, yet consents to the sin anyway. So there is a need to avoid situations which would certainly lead a person in general to serious sin. It is a due diligence in keeping with the will to avoid sin.

Baltimore Catechism No 3.

Q. 1324. In what does the sixth commandment differ from the ninth, and the seventh differ from the tenth?
A. The sixth commandment differs from the ninth in this, that the sixth refers chiefly to external acts of impurity, while the ninth refers more to sins of thought against purity. The seventh commandment refers chiefly to external acts of dishonesty, while the tenth refers more to thoughts against honesty.

Sixth

Q. 1281. What is the sixth Commandment?
A. The sixth Commandment is: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Q. 1282. What are we commanded by the sixth Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the sixth Commandment to be pure in thought and modest in all our looks, words, and actions.

Q. 1283. It is a sin to listen to immodest conversation, songs or jokes?
A. It is a sin to listen to immodest conversation, songs or jokes when we can avoid it, or to show in any way that we take pleasure in such things.

Q. 1284. What is forbidden by the sixth Commandment?
A. The sixth Commandment forbids all unchaste freedom with another’s wife or husband; also all immodesty with ourselves or others in looks, dress, words, and actions.

Q. 1285. Why are sins of impurity the most dangerous?
A. Sins of impurity are the most dangerous: 1) Because they have the most numerous temptations; 2) Because, if deliberate, they are always mortal, and 3) Because, more than other sins, they lead to the loss of faith.Q. 1286. Does the sixth Commandment forbid the reading of bad and immodest books and newspapers?
A. The sixth Commandment does forbid the reading of bad and immodest books and newspapers.

Q. 1287. What should be done with immodest book and newspapers?
A. Immodest books and newspapers should be destroyed as soon as possible, and if we cannot destroy them ourselves we should induce their owners to do so.

Q. 1288. What books does the Church consider bad?
A. The Church considers bad all books containing teaching contrary to faith or morals, or that willfully misrepresent Catholic doctrine and practice.

Q. 1289. What places are dangerous to the virtue of purity?
A. Indecent theaters and similar places of amusement are dangerous to the virtue of purity, because their entertainments are frequently intended to suggest immodest things.

Ninth

Q. 1316. What are we commanded by the ninth Commandment?
A. We are commanded by the ninth Commandment to keep ourselves pure in thought and desire.

Q. 1318. Are impure thoughts and desires always sins?
A. Impure thoughts and desires are always sins, unless they displease us and we try to banish them.

Avoiding Sin

Q. 770. What do you mean by a firm purpose of sinning no more?
A. By a firm purpose of sinning no more I mean a fixed resolve not only to avoid all mortal sin, but also its near occasions.

Q. 771. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?
A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.

Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?
A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: “He who loves the danger will perish in it”; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.

Q. 773. Is a person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, rightly disposed for confession?
A. A person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, is not rightly disposed for confession, and he will not be absolved if he makes known to the priest the true state of his conscience.

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?
A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;
2. Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
3. Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
4. Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.

Q. 775. What persons, places and things are usually occasions of sin?
A. 1) The persons who are occasions of sin are all those in whose company we sin, whether they be bad of themselves or bad only while in our company, in which case we also become occasions of sin for them;
2) The places are usually liquor saloons, low theaters, indecent dances, entertainments, amusements, exhibitions, and all immoral resorts of any kind, whether we sin in them or not;
3) The things are all bad books, indecent pictures, songs, jokes and the like, even when they are tolerated by public opinion and found in public places.

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

 

[clem456]

You have feelings. That is normal. Some feelings are more dangerous than others.
The question is…what do you do with the feelings? Do you welcome and nourish the feelings? Do you honor them by acting on them?

Do these feelings cause you to

1. look at porn
2. objectify or abuse women
3. masturbate
4. lose sleep
5. miss work

If so then you have sin most likely.

Feelings themsleves are not sins. But feelings can cause us lots of suffering. What you are enduring is called obsessing. If you do not get some support from friends, family, priests, counselors, obsessing can likely lead to acting out. Other people can be a source of help in this area.
God Bless.

 

[sanctabellator]

There has been much great advice given so I fdo not have anything to add in that regard. I just wanted to say is that I also struggle with the same issues. It helps to know you are not alone. Please be assured of my prayers.

 

[GwenL]

Nobody here questioned whether one can sin in his thoughts alone. However I questioned whether a thought alone can be a MORTAL sin and asked for a source. Meaning a source in Catholic doctrine, not somebody’s personal argument from selected passages of Scripture.

If you seriously believe that our Lord was literally saying, or that the church teaches, that looking at a woman with lust is of the same moral evil as actually committing adultery, I feel sorry for you.

Coveting is much more than a few seconds fleeting thoughts. It is deliberately dwelling on the desire for something whiich it would be wrong for you to have,
so hard for so long that it becomes almost inevitable that you will then act it out and take what you desire.

Also the Commandments are written in order from most important to least important. These are nos 9 and 10.

Yes, the Church does teach that one can mortally sin in thought alone. I never said “a few seconds fleeting thoughts.” Those are your words. That’s not what lust is, and it’s not what covetousness is, nor greed, nor envy. A fleeting thought is a temptation, a spontaneous impulse, an intrusion from outside, and is certainly not a sin, not even a venial sin. A fleeting thought might be a near occasion of sin, and such thoughts and our vulnerability to them are the result of concupiscence. Fleeting thoughts can be occasions of virtue–every time you reject such a thought, it is an act of virtue.

Lust is not only a mortal sin, it is a capital sin (CCC 1866). The CCC (2351) defines lust as “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” Certainly, “lusting after a woman” to which you refer is a “disordered desire for sexual pleasure” and therefore a moral evil and a mortal sin.

You might dwell on the object of lust, or covetousness, such that you act it out. But that’s not required, it’s not necessary, and it has nothing at all do to with the fact that the covetousness or lust, as thoughts, are mortal sins in and of themselves.

Here’s another example from the CCC. Envy, in and of itself, can be a mortal sin, and is clearly in the mind, with no action required. CCC 2539: “Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin.” Here, the Catechism states that something purely in your mind–your wish of grave harm to your neighbor–is a mortal sin.

 

[GwenL]

I struggle with unwanted thoughts and feelings of impurity. In the past I committed these sins on purpose, but now that I am trying to avoid them they come up with everyday people I know, from totally everyday day normal thoughts and interactions. Sometimes just being in the presence of, thinking of certain people (not impure thoughts but just thinking of them), seeing a totally innocent picture of them on their Facebook will bring on these feelings. I do not want these feelings or thoughts but they come anyway. I reject them, but then later I find myself second guessing if I rejected them fast enough. (One of the people this sometimes happens about is my priest. Which I guess is why I feel particularly guilty) I feel that I should completely stop thinking about these people, looking at pictures or the Facebook of these people or talking to them. I don’t have these thoughts or look at them with the intent of creating these feelings they just come out of nowhere. I don’t have romantic feeling for these people, So I don’t know why this is happening. Is it an occasion of sin for me to be thinking about or associating with these people? Do I commit a mortal sin when these feeling come or when i associate with them?

I think that we all have this same problem, and my spiritual director says that it gets worse as you become more committed to your faith. You are struggling because you are growing in the spiritual life. You recognize that the thoughts are evil, you don’t want them, you reject them. Every time you reject them, you grow in virtue, and you should take consolation from the accomplishment of rejecting them. Satan is attacking, but not very creatively. Have you noticed that these thoughts are really pretty ridiculous, and they are pretty much the same every time?

You are not committing ANY sin when these thoughts come. If you grab the thoughts and make them your own–start building fantasies and making plans–then you are on shaky ground. As far as associating with these people–that’s not necessarily an occasion of sin. I’d wager that if you stop associating with these particular people, you’ll get similar invading thoughts about other people! Think of them as you would a sexual image that invades your private space through no intent or action of yours–a billboard, a TV ad, etc. Turn your eyes away and think about something else, and you not sinned, but you have gained in virtue.

You might consider discussing these temptations in Confession. They are not sins–they are temptations. However, discussing temptations with a good confessor can be quite valuable. He can give you some good advice on handling temptations, and you gain immense grace from the sacrament to help you in the battle.

 

[Bookcat]

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?
A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;

I have not followed all in this thread (for more than one thread has now been combined)…so my comment here is limited.

I would just note that in the one version of the BC that was quoted it said near occasions are those in which one “always” falls. That is yes true. It is also true (as in other editions of the BC and other works of moral theology etc) that near occasions for mortal sin are also that by which one is “likely” to commit the mortal sin.

 

[Vico]

I have not followed all in this thread (for more than one thread has now been combined)…so my comment here is limited.

I would just note that in the one version of the BC that was quoted it said near occasions are those in which one “always” falls. That is yes true. It is also true (as in other editions of the BC and other works of moral theology etc) that near occasions for mortal sin are also that by which one is “likely” to commit the mortal sin.

That is a good point. The Baltimore Catechism No 4 (for teachers of No 2) has more on this: 207 Q. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?
A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.

"Occasions." There are many kinds of occasions of sin.

• First, we have voluntary and necessary occasions, or those we can avoid and those we cannot avoid.

For example: if a companion uses immodest conversation we can avoid that occasion, because we can keep away from him; but if the one who sins is a member of our own family, always living with us, we cannot so easily avoid that occasion.
​

• Second, near and remote occasions. An occasion is said to be “near” when we usually fall into sin by it.

For instance, if a man gets intoxicated almost every time he visits a certain place, then that place is a “near occasion” of sin for him; but if he gets intoxicated only once out of every fifty times or so that he goes there, then it is said to be a “remote occasion.”
​

• Now, it is not enough to avoid the sins: we must also avoid the occasions. If we have a firm purpose of amendment, if we desire to do better, we must be resolved to avoid everything that will lead us to sin. It is not enough to say, I will go to that place or with that person, but I will never again commit the same sins. No matter what you think now, if you go into the occasion, you will fall again; because Our Lord, who cannot speak falsely, says: “He who loves the danger will perish in it.” Now the occasion of sin is always “the danger”; and if you go into it, Our Lord’s words will come true, and you will fall miserably. Take away the cause, take away the occasion, and then the sin will cease of itself.

Let us suppose the plaster in your house fell down, and you found that it fell because there was a leak in the water-pipe above, and the water coming through wet the plaster and made it fall. What is the first thing your father would do in that case? Why, get a plumber and stop up the leak in the pipe before putting up the plaster again. Would it not be foolish to engage a plasterer to repair the ceiling while the pipe was still leaking? Everyone would say that man must be out of his mind: the plaster will fall down as often as he puts it up, and it matters not either how well he puts it up. If he wants it to stay up, he must first mend the pipe—take away the cause of its falling. Now the occasion of sin is like the leak in the pipe—in the case of sin, it will very likely cause you to fall every time. Stop up the leak, take away the occasion, and then you will not fall into sin—at least not so frequently.
​

“The persons” are generally bad companions, and though they may not be bad when alone, they are bad when with us, and thus we become also bad companions for them, and occasions of sin.

"The places." Liquor saloons, low theaters, dance halls, and all places where we may see or hear anything against faith or morals.

"Things." Bad books, pictures, and the like.​

 

[Bookcat]

“always”, “likely”, “usually” …such has yes been used in other places as well to describe such.

 

[Petergee]

It tis not just a “good idea”

Actually there is a need – an obligation-- to confess forgotten mortal sins.

Usually in the next confession --but one many not remember so soon --so when one remembers.

A bit more from:

Fr. John Hardon: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33610

Jimmy Akin: jimmyakin.com/2006/09/a_reader_writes_1.html

etc

(scruples are another story)

(and well if one never remembers that creates an impossibility…so no worries)

(As to those who are scrupulous or struggle to one degree or another with with scruples – a “regular confessor” can guide them – they can be even “in a different boat” than others. They can start to want to confess all sorts of unneeded things and unneeded details and need a regular confessor to direct them–often they are they have been told to not confess any “past sin” that is remembered unless both of the following is true 1. One is certain it was mortal and 2. Certain it was not confessed rightly. And their confessor might for example tell them not to look for past sins (being it stirs up their scruples) etc etc . And for anyone --one is not obliged to confess “doubtful sins” (like doubtful it was mortal)

With the greatest resepct to you and to Fr Hardon and Mr Akin, none of you refers to any actual Church teaching that this is an obligation.

 

[Petergee]

Yes, the Church does teach that one can mortally sin in thought alone. I never said “a few seconds fleeting thoughts.” Those are your words.

No they are the OP’s.

That’s not what lust is, and it’s not what covetousness is, nor greed, nor envy. A fleeting thought is a temptation, a spontaneous impulse, an intrusion from outside, and is certainly not a sin, not even a venial sin. A fleeting thought might be a near occasion of sin, and such thoughts and our vulnerability to them are the result of concupiscence. Fleeting thoughts can be occasions of virtue–every time you reject such a thought, it is an act of virtue.

Lust is not only a mortal sin, it is a capital sin (CCC 1866). The CCC (2351) defines lust as “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” Certainly, “lusting after a woman” to which you refer is a “disordered desire for sexual pleasure” and therefore a moral evil and a mortal sin.

You might dwell on the object of lust, or covetousness, such that you act it out. But that’s not required, it’s not necessary, and it has nothing at all do to with the fact that the covetousness or lust, as thoughts, are mortal sins in and of themselves.

Here’s another example from the CCC. Envy, in and of itself, can be a mortal sin, and is clearly in the mind, with no action required. CCC 2539: “Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin.” Here, the Catechism states that something purely in your mind–your wish of grave harm to your neighbor–is a mortal sin.

You seem to be under the impression that the so-called “seven capital sins” are by defintion mortal sins, and moreover a particularly grave type of mortal sin which is somehow “more mortal” than an “ordinary” mortal sin. Neither the Catechism nor any other document of Catholic teaching that I now of says such a thing.

The seven capital sins, better called sources of sin, are merely a clasification of which types of sins men commit. And one could say that if we go even deeper into the roots, the root of all sins is pride. The capital sins are not sins of thought, they are categories embracing sins of thought, word, deed and omission.

 

[Vico]

With the greatest resepct to you and to Fr Hardon and Mr Akin, none of you refers to any actual Church teaching that this is an obligation.

I can give you this reference from Baltimore Catechism No. 3:

Q. 793. Is our Confession worthy if, without our fault, we forget to confess a mortal sin?
A. If without our fault we forget to confess a mortal sin, our Confession is worthy, and the sin is forgiven; but it must be told in Confession if it again comes to our mind.

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-19.htm

We know that the Baltimore Catechism was approved by the Church, as well as others.

Fidei Depositum, Blessed Pope John Paul II, 1992:The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the result of very extensive collaboration: it was prepared over six years of intense work done in a spirit of complete openness and fervent zeal. …
This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which must take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…ositum_en.html

You are absolved if you meant to confess all your mortal sins, even if there exist forgotten mortal sins. It is a new sin if you refuse to adopt the intention of confessing a remembered but unconfessed sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: “All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.” 54 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1680 (ND 1626); cf. Ex 20:17; Mt 5:28.

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."55
CIC Canon 988 - 1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and in number all serious sins committed after baptism and not yet directly remitted through the keys of the Church now acknowledged in individual confession, of which one is conscious after diligent examination of conscience.
Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pius V) from Turin edition of 1914.* Sins Forgotten*
But should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion.
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

 

[Vico]

Even though grave sins forgotten and thus omitted at the time of
confession are* indirectly* remitted, the canon indicates that these too must be
confessed directly. CIC Canon 988 - 1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and in number all serious sins committed after baptism and not yet directly remitted through the keys of the Church now acknowledged in individual confession, of which one is conscious after diligent examination of conscience.

Also CCC give these sources for footnote 54: Council of Trent (1551):
Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1680 (ND 1626);
cf. Ex 20:17;
Mt 5:28.
We see from the Council of Trent Session XIV, Nov. 25, 1551 A.D.:
CANON VII. – If any one saith, that, in the sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary, of divine right, for the remission of sins, to confess all and singular the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered, even those (mortal sins) which are secret, and those which are opposed to the two last commandments of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which change the species of a sin; but (saith) that such confession is only useful to instruct and console the penitent, and that it was of old only observed in order to impose a canonical satisfaction; or saith that they, who strive to confess all their sins, wish to leave nothing to the divine mercy to pardon; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins; let him be anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

When the faithful do not come forth with the remembered mortal sin, already resolved, they do not receive a penance for it. Another canon states that we are to receive a penence:

CIC Canon 981The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfill these penances.
Also even when there is general absolution given, with approval of the bishop (which means generally in wartime or a period of one month without opportunity to confess personally), we still must have the intention to confess personally. In that way we receive our penance. See CCC 1483, CIC 961.2. Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary means by which a member of the faithful conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and the Church. Only physical or moral impossibility excuses from confession of this type; in such a case reconciliation can be obtained by other means.

Can. 961 §1. Absolution cannot be imparted in a general manner to many penitents at once without previous individual confession unless:

1/ danger of death is imminent and there is insufficient time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2/ there is grave necessity, that is, when in view of the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available to hear the confessions of individuals properly within a suitable period of time in such a way that the penitents are forced to be deprived for a long while of sacramental grace or holy communion through no fault of their own. Sufficient necessity is not considered to exist when confessors cannot be present due only to the large number of penitents such as can occur on some great feast or pilgrimage.

§2. It belongs to the diocesan bishop to judge whether the conditions required according to the norm of §1, n. 2 are present. He can determine the cases of such necessity, attentive to the criteria agreed upon with the other members of the conference of bishops.

Can. 962 §1. For a member of the Christian faithful validly to receive sacramental absolution given to many at one time, it is required not only that the person is properly disposed but also at the same time intends to confess within a suitable period of time each grave sin which at the present time cannot be so confessed.

§2. Insofar as it can be done even on the occasion of the reception of general absolution, the Christian faithful are to be instructed about the requirements of the norm of §1. An exhortation that each person take care to make an act of contrition is to precede general absolution even in the case of danger of death, if there is time.

Can. 963 Without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in ⇒ can. 989, a person whose grave sins are remitted by general absolution is to approach individual confession as soon as possible, given the opportunity, before receiving another general absolution, unless a just cause intervenes.
There is a slight difference in the eastern canon law (CCEO).

 

[JRKH]

No they are the OP’s.

You seem to be under the impression that the so-called “seven capital sins” are by defintion mortal sins, and moreover a particularly grave type of mortal sin which is somehow “more mortal” than an “ordinary” mortal sin. Neither the Catechism nor any other document of Catholic teaching that I now of says such a thing.

The seven capital sins, better called sources of sin, are merely a classification of which types of sins men commit. And one could say that if we go even deeper into the roots, the root of all sins is pride. The capital sins are not sins of thought, they are categories embracing sins of thought, word, deed and omission.

Peter,
Nice post here.
I am a person who believes in the understanding and use of the “Seven Capital (or deadly) Sins” for the purpose of understanding and improvement.
You describe them above as “classifications” - I use the term “root causes” (maybe because I use to work in the quality field…).
The better we understand these underlying causes, the better we are able to overcome them. And we will likely find that working on one root cause will tend to eliminate a number of different and often habitual different “discrete” sins.

One additional comment. You comment above that if we dig deeper we will find that the root cause is pride. I have read this before and Yes I agree…But even this does not get to the actual singular core root cause of all sin. All sin is a violation of the Law of Love. It is a failure to embrace the two great commandments of Love - Love God and Love neighbor as yourself. A venial sin is an “oops” where a mortal sin is deliberate violation of this law of Love.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[Bookcat]

With the greatest resepct to you and to Fr Hardon and Mr Akin, none of you refers to any actual Church teaching that this is an obligation.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All grave sins not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

(grave sins = mortal sins)

Vico has already covered things well.

I will simply repost a post from before (other things could be added …)

Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and *not yet *remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.

vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm

Every bit of the this canon is important…

here are a few notes:

1. We are Obliged to confess in number and kind all grave sins (grave sin =mortal sin)
2. It is both number and kind (for grave sins)
3. That were not directly remitted…that means directly confessed and absolved…when a mortal sin is forgotten (not hidden) it is “indirectly absolved” thus it still needs to be confessed “directly” in number and kind in the next confession (even though it was indirectly absolved)
4. and again there is further emphasis that they need to be confessed in an individual confession…not only absolved in an emergency without confession…or indirectly…

When I confessed murder and in my nervousness I forgot to say it was 5 murders (or forget to say I robed someone too)…that which was not directly confessed, given a penance for and absolved was “indirectly absolved” …it still remains for me to submit it directly to the keys in confession for they have not yet been submitted directly (that is they do if and when I realize it).

So if someone unknowingly omits a mortal sin …no problem for it was absolved for they were contrite etc and seeking to confess all their mortal sins. But they still have the obligation (within reason…our memories do not aways serve us…etc) to confess them…in number and kind…(and circumstance that changes the kind --like it was my brother I murdered)…

…for they have NOT yet confessed those serious sins.

(As I noted above: those who are scrupulous or struggle to one degree or another with with scruples – a “regular confessor” can guide them – they can be even “in a different boat” than others. They can start to want to confess all sorts of unneeded things and unneeded details and need a regular confessor to direct them–often they are they have been told to not confess any “past sin” that is remembered unless both of the following is true 1. One is certain it was mortal and 2. Certain it was not confessed rightly. And their confessor might for example tell them not to look for past sins (being it stirs up their scruples) etc etc . And for anyone --one is not obliged to confess “doubtful sins” (like doubtful it was mortal)

 

[Petergee]

Thank you Bookcat and Vico, it appears from a more careful reading of the Church’s teachings that I was mistaken.